View Single Post
Old 5th December 2010, 14:32   #13
Rossp
Super Moderator
Track / Motorsport PrepCentral Counties Region MemberContent ContributorSouth East Region MemberEast Anglia Region MemberEast Midlands Region Member
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cambridge(ish), UK.
Posts: 10,581
Blog Entries: 5
Car(s): BMW 5x M50d.
iTrader Score: 5 (100%)
Ross is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outrage_uk View Post
I would also disagree that a young driver with zero convictions against your 6 points is a clear black / white case of high risk / low risk. If anything your clear disregard for the law either seriously once or less seriously twice, shows that you are a high risk driver and should be charged at least the going rate for a young driver that has no points.
My insurance is inflated because of those two speeding convictions. Absolutely. Statistically however, I'm a FAR better risk than a 17/18 year old. Surely you're not attempting to contradict that? If so - you might want to have a word with the researchers

Quote:
Originally Posted by outrage_uk View Post
Everyone is an individual and just because your a young driver it does not make it right to charge you 20x more than someone older - if and when you make a claim or get a conviction then, yes, they should be be able to re-evaluate on a risk basis.
Insurance companies have to profile people - to give an individual quote would be not only cost probibitive but tantamount to saying "pretty please, I promise not to have an accident, even though every statistic says I'm likely too". Of course they have a right to charge more for a higher risk. Would you consider it unjust that a house in a flood risk area should pay the same as a house on a hill for the same level of flood cover? Of course not. Statistically the house thats likely to flood should pay more for its cover, as it's more likely to be required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outrage_uk View Post
And you say they "just wont pay out". This isn't strictly true. Insurance companies are under a legal obligation to cover you against third party liability when you are paying for the cover. If they choose to void your policy proceeding a claim, they will need a very good reason backed up by very good evidence.
They don't have an obligation to pay out at all if you've obtained that insurance by fraud. Which fronting is.

You're fighting a losing battle. As much as you may think you have the moral high ground by finding what you consider to be a loophole in the system, the law says otherwise. If I drive drunk and don't get caught, it doesn't make it any less illegal.
__________________
COMMUNITY RULES|SELLING RULES|NEWBIE RULES|SAX-P SHOP|SEARCH FIRST!
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote